Are high-end crossovers worth it?

[Deang]

Nevermind.

[Frzninvt]

Why go through the trouble to update parts and then just put in half *** parts? What's the point! If you are going to do it do it right the first time! If you are reluctant to spend the bucks I guess the sound quality really does not matter that much to you, so why not just leave them alone altogether.

If you can't hear the difference between a bone stock AA/AL network and one of Dean's reworked networks than you are just plain tone deaf! I certainly don't claim to have magic ears, mine have been tormented with firearms and loud car and home systems for years and I can tell the difference immediately.

I also guarantee that I could tell in a blind test not seeing what networks are installed.

The updated networks make much more difference than most source upgrades.

I personally don't give a rat's *** what you do, but your speakers are NOT going to be the best that they can be with stock networks and the factory-installed cost-effective parts.

I want my speakers to perform at the highest possible level's and the network updates have definately brought them to another level! I give great thanks to the likes of DeanG, Chris, Bob C, and Al K for the services that they provide to us! Thanks for giving us the option guys! Kudos to you!

I have carried over your knowledge and experience with networks into my car system as well, and what a surprise they make a difference there too! If you think that a 23 year old 8uf electrolytic cap is going to sound as good as a brand new 8.2uf Solen installed in the aging network boy are you misguided.

Just my two cents.

[Colin]

Are high-end crossovers worth it?

At Daddydees May 2004 gathering in Arkansas, I heard a before and after demonstration of deans upgraded crossover in a pair of new RF7s. The result was an immediately obvious difference. The once shrill high end was not smooth and detailed. Since this individual had a new CD source and a sweet Cayin TA30 integrated tube amplifier, about the only improvements he might want are a deep subwoofer and acoustic panels. Were they worth it? Absolutely. Brought out the best of the Klipsch.

[Deang]

"The once shrill high end was not smooth and detailed..."

Colin, I sure hope you meant to say "now smooth and detailed", or else I need to retire the soldering iron!

[J.4knee]

OK I would like to offer my comment on the network swap on Friday night. When I came in I initially thought the La Scala's sounded like they had a blanket over them. My wife even commented that they sounded "dead". When Dean put his networks in the sound livened up significantly there was a lot more clarity and detail in the mids and high end that was seriously missing before. I wont say they sounded as good as my ALKs but then the room was not exactly an ideal venue for critical listening tests, especially by a bunch of liquored up 40+ year old folks (referring chiefly to myself). Deans crossover change out made an immediate sound improvement. One thing is undeniably certain here; better parts make for better sound

[DrWho]

Here's the posted crossover frequencies that the lascala uses according to the website. I would assume that any crossover would have similar points because it's the same mechanical structure.

HF: 4500Hz

MF: 400Hz

The RF-7 is at 2200Hz (a whole octave lower).

I just wanted to point out that 4500Hz is by no means a "high frequency" sound...more in the midrange. 8kHz would be the absolute lowest I would associate with high frequencies, which is a good octave higher (2 octaves for the RF-7). It just makes me question people commenting on changes in the higher frequencies when the crossover isn't supposed to be doing anything in those regions. I suppose a 12dB/octave slope is only down 12dB at 9000kHz and the squaker could be audible (but who's showing that the squaker isn't doing as good of a job...I don't see anybody complaining about "squakers" being used in 2-way designs that are supposed to play higher). The RF-7 on the other hand is at the very least 24db down before it's affecting any of the "high frequencies." (by my definition of "high" anyway...I suppose it could be different for different people). But doesn't klipsch use 18db/octave slopes?

Anyways, I'm not trying to debate whether or not people hear a difference, but I would never seriously consider anything like this without a technical explanation/reason whatever you wanna call it. If I were to purchase equipment based purely on other's opinions, then I should be buying myself Bose everything. Trying to blame things on my ears (I believe perfect pitch means that I can't be tone deaf) seems like a cop-out to me. And I'm not trying to say I'd never hear a difference either, but I'm definetly yet to hear it. I also wouldn't expect to have heard any subtle differences at the mixer because I wasn't familiar with the music in question. How was I to know whether or not something was the recording or the speakers? I can tell you though that the difference was nowhere near the difference in sound between the SF-2 and lascalas.

I think I should also mention that I don't really care for the lascala sound either, but that opens a whole new can of worms so let's not go there

My point keeps getting missed (cuz I'm trying to cover too many aspects at once), so allow me to state that I just want to see some measurements or get a simple explanation for the concept behind it. There has got to be a reason better than "it just sounds better" or "old stuff doesn't work well." My original argument is that for any quantitative change that crossovers make, that one can probably find another alternative that provides a better change for the same money spent. However, it can't be shown without someone providing quantitave results (and I'm not about to go drops tons of money to test it myself). Just look at Bose, they spend a great deal of time and money keeping the quantitative results hidden so that they can rely on qualitative data.

Btw, please forgive me for the comparison to Bose - it was just for the sake of making a point and I'm pretty sure all y'alls aren't trying to rip anybody off. Is it really too much to ask for even one graph? I just don't get what flaws are trying to be compensated for.

[Deang]

You're all over the map with this, which makes a straight-forward response difficult. All of your objections have been addressed in some form or another in the last six months, and I just don't have the time or energy to type it all out again. I don't think Al is up to it either. Plots and graphs are in abundance out here, and enough have been posted to fill a 747.

You have valid objections/concerns, and deserve answers -- but you'll have to get them over the phone. If you want to talk, I can probably do a good job of sorting this out into nice little piles, and you'll have a better handle on the various positions. Any night after 6. 937-299-6324.

[SilverSport]

DeanG,

Not pistols at dawn???

Bill

[BEC]

----------------

On 6/29/2005 9:01:32 AM silversport wrote:

DeanG,

Not pistols at dawn???

Bill

----------------

Looks like they could have setteled it in the Klipsch parking lot over the weekend.

Bob

[DrWho]

Nah, in the parking lot I was getting a kick out of Dean telling a story about taps and (was it Trey?) said he was using the wrong ones or something and it took Dean a while to figure it out and there was something about a 1.5dB difference with a driver and a different autoformer changing to 2dB taps instead of the old 3dB and blah blah blah. But in the end Dean really was using the right taps. I'm sure he could tell the story better than I could.

[SilverSport]

Doc, you did fine...

Bill

[Deang]

Actually, if we accept that the K-55-M is 2db hotter than the K-55-V -- then Trey was right. The problem was that Trey and Steve initially told me I was 3db too hot, and I knew there was no way it was that much. When Klipsch went to the K-55-M driver, they quit using the T2A autoformer and went with the T4A. The T2A attenuates in 3db increments. The way I looked at it was that if I was 3db too hot -- then there wouldn't have been any reason for them to go to the T4A. They simply could have stayed with the T2A and dropped down to tap 3. When I mentioned this to them, it became 2db. I then came back with 1.5db. I also felt (and still feel), that the addition of a bandpass (which the stock networks don't have), reduces some of what the squawker normally produces, and this means a small reduction in the amount of energy it carries. Now, none of these speakers measure anywhere near flat anechoically, and without an RTA -- who knows what they're really doing once you stick them in a rooom. 2db is NOTHING. What sounds "hot" to one person puts another person to sleep!

See attached. The network in question is a constant impedance design, and uses the UT 3619 autoformer. Though I soldered in the connections to suit my personal taste, as well as what I thought Craig would prefer -- they can in fact be switched on the fly if one chooses. Differences in room acoustics and taste make this a very nice feature.

[D-MAN]

----------------

On 6/26/2005 9:29:05 PM Al Klappenberger wrote:

DrWho,

I have to jump in here! You have it totally reversed! The weakest link IS THE SPEAKERS! Get them right first, then fiddle with the electronics. The battle over tubes versus solid state and one turntable versus another is small popatoes compared to the difference in speakers. One trip to the local schlock-house hi-fi store with a loudspeaker listening room should convince you of that! Swap out the squawker horn in you heritage speake for something else and you will wonder why you ever spent money on amplifier swaping!

Al K.

----------------

I agree with Al K. on this point. Also, another point is that I feel that, in general, all production crossovers have short-comings that are part-and-parcel of costing the product for retail sales. The rule of thumb there is to use the cheapest parts that you can get and still get the job done well enough to move product. It doesn't have to do any more than that, which CAN leave alot to be desired.

That's that case for aftermarket upgrades to better designs and better quality parts.

Finally, the cost of aftermarket crossovers: worth it?

Well, like it has been said above, that's a very subjective call, and frankly for me, the answer is YES, they are essentially hand-made of high quality parts, but if you want the gain in performance, you got to pay it. Just like a nice amp/pre, etc. you get what you pay for, and it's spendy.

So the question should really be: DO AFTERMARKET CROSSOVER UPGRADES IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF HIGH QUALITY STOCK SPEAKERS?

Unequivically, YES, they do. You get what you pay for.

As for the extreme-slope crossovers, I am completely sold on them, and can't recommend them highly enough. They enabled my design.

DM

[Al Klappenberger]

Guys,

That post looks firmiliar, Dean!

I say that the K55M and K55V have identical sensitivity. I was told that by one of the Klipsch engineers while in Pual Klipsch's living room! That was the big "tour of Hope" some years ago. I have also measured them both by setting a reference using wide band noise and a calibrated mike. I unscrewed one and screwing in the other. No change. Identical!

AL K.

[Deang]

So why the autoformer change when they went to the K-55-M with the AK/AL networks?

[BEC]

Dean,

I am with Al on this one. I believe the sensitivity is the same. Certainly is the same within my ability to measure it.

Bob

[BEC]

----------------

On 6/29/2005 2:40:27 PM DeanG wrote:

So why the autoformer change when they went to the K-55-M with the AK/AL networks?

----------------

Dean, there was also the T-5A in the AK-2 and who knows how many others may have been used before they setteled on the T-4A for the AL-3/AK-3

Bob

[Deang]

Well, that's what I figured, but they're 'Klipsch' and I'm not. Here's something to think about Bob: They said the squawker sounded hot on taps 4/0, but this network rolls the squawker off a lot faster than the acoustic roll off does, AND it uses the swamping resistor to level impedance. Now, based on what you believe the effect of the swamping resistor to be -- what do you make of it? It gets better. They ran the LaScalas up with a 150wpc digital amp, and measured 120.1db in front of the speaker. Try that with a Type A or AA (tapped out on 4 & 0), and see how many people stay in their chairs. I think they saw taps 4 and 0 and simply assumed it was running hot. Dammit, my blood pressure is going up again!

[BEC]

Dean,

Let's see. If I did that right, they were only up to about 50 watts or so into the Lascalas. I think that would sound fine with the A or AA as long as they have been rebuilt anyway. I am sure I have listened to at least that much power into Lascalas with the AA. I did put a measured 100 watts into my Lascalas with AL-3s one time and thought the music stayed together pretty nice. Same day, I put 100 watts into Heresy IIs with the same amp and thought they handled it well. Also did a 100 watts into a pair of Chorus that day.

Bob

[Al Klappenberger]

Bob, Dean,

I sure hate to disagree with myself, but here's a plot of the K55v and K55m done on the same horn at the same time. It seems to say that Tray was right. The "M" does look hoter!

Al K.